Smt. Anjana Somvanshi and others v. Rajesh Kumar), under Section

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 01.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Case No. 76 of 2022 (Smt. Anjana Somvanshi and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. allowing the interim maintenance application and directing the revisionist to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 10,000/- per month for each to opposite party nos. 3 and 4 on 10th day of every month and also pay 50 % of school fee, uniform and books of both the kids within three months. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist and opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are minor son and daughter aged about 13 years and 14 years. The marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 was solemnized in the year 2007 and both of them lived as husband and wife. In the meantime, dispute arose between the parties as a result the wife started living separately from the husband from the year 2018 with those minor children. Further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is highly qualified woman and is also a naturopathy doctor who has degree of M.A. Yoga and M.Phil. yoga. She makes income about 2 to 2.5 lacs per month. She also operates Sampurna Fertility Yoga Center in Gurgaon. Her yoga programs are also telecasted on T. V. Channel also. In this way, she is capable in maintaining herself, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the revisionist is M.Tech and belongs to a respected family but now a days he is unemployed and making preparation for Rajasthan Civil Services and also appeared in mains examination. From the year 2018, he is trying for service but the opposite party no. 2 filed several cases against him as a result he is in distress and is not in a position to prepare well. He was doing private job prior to the year 2018 and making income amounting to Rs. 15,07,227/- per year as is evident from the ITR assessment year 2018-19 but thereafter he is unemployed and having no any income. It is further submitted that learned trial court has passed the order dated 01.01.2025 for interim maintenance in favour of wife amounting to Rs. 10,000/- per month and Rs. 10,000/- each for two minor children and also 50 % amount of fees and expenses on children may be borne by both side which cannot be said to be appropriate and within the capacity of the revisionist. He also submits that the revisionist has purchased some properties in the name of opposite party no. 2 out of which one property has been sold by her and there is handsome amount of Rs. 33 lacs in her account and also ITR filed by her show her income. Even in the assessment year 2023-24, Rs. 4,65,050/- has been shown in the ITR as income which shows that she makes earning and is capable in maintaining herself, therefore, revisionist is not under legal obligation to maintain her. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2007. Till the year 2018 they lived together and out of wedlock two children were born, one aged about 13 years and other aged about 14 years. The children are getting education in the school. The educational and other expenses on both children are borne and paid by the wife. The ITR relating to the income of the revisionist in the assessment year 2018-19 shows that his annual income was Rs. 15,07,227/- yearly. The ITRs filed by him in the later years have not been brought on record by him before the learned trial court which shows that he has concealed his current income. The person who was making income Rs. 15,07,227/- yearly in the year 2018 cannot be said to have zero income in the later years. The revisionist is M.Tech from IIT and cannot be said to be incapable to maintain his wife and children according to their living status. Since both the children are living with the wife and she is bearing the expenses including expenses of their education out of her income that may be Rs. 4,65,050/- as shown in the ITR for the assessment year 2023-24 but this income appears to be 1/4th of the income of the husband and it cannot be said that it is sufficient for her to maintain herself and also bear the expenses of education of both children. The revisionist is ready to make payment of amount of maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- to the wife and children. Main grievance is that he is not in capacity to make payment of 50% fees and amount to be spent on books and uniform. So far as the expenses on the children are concerned the learned trial court has awarded only 50% amount on the revisionist and 50% will be borne by the wife herself from her own income. The revisionist has filed on record the fee receipt from Prince Lotus Valley Academy and also the hostel fee receipt which shows that Rs.1,29,000/- is hostel fee and Rs. 55,000/- is tuition fee for one child and two children are getting education in same school when taken together the amount becomes Rs. 2,58,000/- as hostel fee and Rs. 1,10,000/- tuition fee. Total Rs. 368,000/- out of which only 50% is to be paid by the revisionist/husband and 50% will be borne by the wife herself. In the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324, para 92 it has been observed that education expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties. In view of all these factors, it cannot be said that the amount of maintenance in favour of wife/opposite party no. 2 Rs. 10,000/- and in favour of children Rs. 10,000/- for each and 50% expenses on education of children is more but it may be insufficient. In this way, the learned trial court has not made any error or illegality in passing the order in favour of the opposite parties. Thus, the order passed by learned trial court cannot be said to be illegal and in appropriate but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Anurag Singh

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 01.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Case No. 76 of 2022 (Smt. Anjana Somvanshi and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. allowing the interim maintenance application and directing the revisionist to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 10,000/- per month for each to opposite party nos. 3 and 4 on 10th day of every month and also pay 50 % of school fee, uniform and books of both the kids within three months. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, opposite party no. 2 is wife of the revisionist and opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are minor son and daughter aged about 13 years and 14 years. The marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 was solemnized in the year 2007 and both of them lived as husband and wife. In the meantime, dispute arose between the parties as a result the wife started living separately from the husband from the year 2018 with those minor children. Further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is highly qualified woman and is also a naturopathy doctor who has degree of M.A. Yoga and M.Phil. yoga. She makes income about 2 to 2.5 lacs per month. She also operates Sampurna Fertility Yoga Center in Gurgaon. Her yoga programs are also telecasted on T. V. Channel also. In this way, she is capable in maintaining herself, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the revisionist is M.Tech and belongs to a respected family but now a days he is unemployed and making preparation for Rajasthan Civil Services and also appeared in mains examination. From the year 2018, he is trying for service but the opposite party no. 2 filed several cases against him as a result he is in distress and is not in a position to prepare well. He was doing private job prior to the year 2018 and making income amounting to Rs. 15,07,227/- per year as is evident from the ITR assessment year 2018-19 but thereafter he is unemployed and having no any income. It is further submitted that learned trial court has passed the order dated 01.01.2025 for interim maintenance in favour of wife amounting to Rs. 10,000/- per month and Rs. 10,000/- each for two minor children and also 50 % amount of fees and expenses on children may be borne by both side which cannot be said to be appropriate and within the capacity of the revisionist. He also submits that the revisionist has purchased some properties in the name of opposite party no. 2 out of which one property has been sold by her and there is handsome amount of Rs. 33 lacs in her account and also ITR filed by her show her income. Even in the assessment year 2023-24, Rs. 4,65,050/- has been shown in the ITR as income which shows that she makes earning and is capable in maintaining herself, therefore, revisionist is not under legal obligation to maintain her. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2007. Till the year 2018 they lived together and out of wedlock two children were born, one aged about 13 years and other aged about 14 years. The children are getting education in the school. The educational and other expenses on both children are borne and paid by the wife. The ITR relating to the income of the revisionist in the assessment year 2018-19 shows that his annual income was Rs. 15,07,227/- yearly. The ITRs filed by him in the later years have not been brought on record by him before the learned trial court which shows that he has concealed his current income. The person who was making income Rs. 15,07,227/- yearly in the year 2018 cannot be said to have zero income in the later years. The revisionist is M.Tech from IIT and cannot be said to be incapable to maintain his wife and children according to their living status. Since both the children are living with the wife and she is bearing the expenses including expenses of their education out of her income that may be Rs. 4,65,050/- as shown in the ITR for the assessment year 2023-24 but this income appears to be 1/4th of the income of the husband and it cannot be said that it is sufficient for her to maintain herself and also bear the expenses of education of both children. The revisionist is ready to make payment of amount of maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- to the wife and children. Main grievance is that he is not in capacity to make payment of 50% fees and amount to be spent on books and uniform. So far as the expenses on the children are concerned the learned trial court has awarded only 50% amount on the revisionist and 50% will be borne by the wife herself from her own income. The revisionist has filed on record the fee receipt from Prince Lotus Valley Academy and also the hostel fee receipt which shows that Rs.1,29,000/- is hostel fee and Rs. 55,000/- is tuition fee for one child and two children are getting education in same school when taken together the amount becomes Rs. 2,58,000/- as hostel fee and Rs. 1,10,000/- tuition fee. Total Rs. 368,000/- out of which only 50% is to be paid by the revisionist/husband and 50% will be borne by the wife herself. In the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324, para 92 it has been observed that education expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties. In view of all these factors, it cannot be said that the amount of maintenance in favour of wife/opposite party no. 2 Rs. 10,000/- and in favour of children Rs. 10,000/- for each and 50% expenses on education of children is more but it may be insufficient. In this way, the learned trial court has not made any error or illegality in passing the order in favour of the opposite parties. Thus, the order passed by learned trial court cannot be said to be illegal and in appropriate but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Anurag Singh